• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red Dead Redemption - 360 & PS3 comparison (Bish-approved!)

miladesn said:
I think the engine isn't a good fit for PS3, it was designed for 360 from the beginning, see table tennis, it was developed for 360 naturally because they had the hardware first..
Click to expand...

perhaps... but... the engine was designed for Red Dead FIRST and then jobbed out to the TT and GTA teams... the R* San Diego team has been massaging this thing for 5 years with GTA as a test tube baby. :lol

edit:
oh and with the higher overhead of PS3 system RAM and the 9MB of game RAM used for custom soundtracks... something has to give here somewhere all else being equal to 360... and as Magnus said, install to HDD is a big help for all games loading textures
 
I understand the annoyance with over the top pronouncements and bullshit speculation, but it's almost just as funny to see the defensiveness over discussion of differences as if anyone who cares is a moron (see 28 variations on "it doesn't matter"). You'd think on a forum like GAF where tons of people own PS3/360 it wouldn't rile people up so much when maybe their version is a little bit deficient. What's amazing is that so many posts are from people who clearly made up their mind days or weeks ago what version they are going to get, yet feel the need to constantly downplay other people's desire to know the differences. I'm just waiting for the inevitable Digitial Foundary comparison to get shot down in 12 different ways as biased to cap this all off.
 
Klocker said:
perhaps... but... the engine was designed for Red Dead FIRST and then jobbed out to the TT and GTA teams... the R* San Diego team has been massaging this thing for 5 years with GTA as a test tube baby. :lol
Click to expand...

Really?
 
Magnus said:
Really?
Click to expand...

according to this interview

more info regarding this Rage engine

Quote:
Technology
While GTA IV was hailed as a crowning achievement in technology for the open-world genre with its expansive and detailed world, physics system and Euphoria, the game engine Rockstar North used was actually developed by Rockstar San Diego. The RAGE engine was originally built for Red Dead Redemption (and was shown off in tech-demo form at E3 in 2005), but has since found itself as the company's staple development architecture; evolving as needed to cater for anything being built within the collective Rockstar studios' walls. What this means, however, is that while the engine is available to everyone within Rockstar, the team who know it best are clearly the guys who built it. And all the while it was being tweaked and moulded to bring us GTA IV, San Diego were in development with Red Dead Redemption; learning from mistakes or shortcomings essentially tested with GTA IV. This shows in the final result; the game is very, very quick to load (so no annoying GTA IV pre-load art screens), and the game-world seamlessly renders in incredible scope. The only time you're really facing any lengthy loads is if you fast travel to different areas, otherwise it's all-immersive, never once pulling you out of suspended disbelief and your overall experience.
Click to expand...
 
Lion Heart said:
I just got a new TV. Theoretically, how would 640p look on a 1080p native tv? Worse than a 720p tv?
Click to expand...

LQX said:
You most likely wont notice a difference.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There'll be more upscaling happening on your 1080p set, hence it wont look as clean/sharp as it would on a 720p set.

I've experienced this first hand with literally every title I won bar Virtua Tennis 3.

Every single game I own looks better on my 32" Bravia 1366 x 768 LCD over my 50" Full HD 800A Panasonic Plasma.

Having said that, this thread is pretty funny, and a couple of juniors have already exposed their agendas pretty early on in life.
 
Magnus said:
No idea, played it on the 360 since the PS3's contrast and lighting was so jacked for me on that game for some reason. And no, this should be in the title of the thread; you're stuck with L2/R2, but it feels fine. :D You needn't push R2 all the way in to shoot. Light taps work.
Click to expand...
Man that sucks.

Still undecided if I was gonna pick it up or wait for the price to hit $30.
 
Quoting myself from the other thread, because we still have no solid proof that goes any further it seems. And no, random impressions from reviewers do not count! :lol

schennmu said:
So let my try to sum things up on the tech side. So many misinformed people here.


What we know:

Xbox 360 version runs at 720p with 2XAA according to "pro" pixel counter MazingerDUDE.

What we suspect:

PS3 version is most likely sub hd. Has been speculated for months and was the same for GTAIV and Midnight club.

A resolution of 640p (which is not too far away from 720p) seems likely at the moment.

MazingerDUDE had the following to say, based off some bad quality off screen grabs:

"I'd need direct grabs for some accurate analysis, but taking a possibility of overscan into account, the game probably runs at the same res as GTA4 (640P)."


What we don't know:

Framerate on both versions
GTAIV initially ran about 10% better on Xbox 360. Episodes from Liberty City gave the PS3 engine a boost and improved the framerate up to par to the 360 version. Midnight Club sports a higher framerate on the PS3 (source: Digital Foundry)
Impressions so far suggest a better frame rate for the 360 version.

Dithering on Xbox 360
GTAIV on Xbox 360 had heavy problems with dithered textures and shadows, decreasing the overall image quality greatly. This led to people preferring the PS3 version, even though it was inferior from a pure technical point of view. (720p 2XAA vs. 640p with blur filter)
(Digital Foundry, Quaz51 and IGN are prominent sources)

Update: Judging from the footage we've seen so far, the shadowing issue has been greatly improved, if not resolved. The dithering issue still seems to be visible on trees, marston's beard in a different screenshot, etc. though.
image_red_dead_redemption-12822-1780_0013.jpg

A direct feed comparison with the PS3 version is necessary.

PS3 Anti Aliasing
The original GTA IV PS3 had no AA, just a blur filter. Selective Quincunx AA has been added to the engine with the release of the DLC packs. Midnight Club implies Quincunx AA as well. An absence of any form of AA in RdR would be a disappointment.

Tearing
PS3 GTAIV is v-locked, 360 version had very slight tearing. From impressions so far, the same could be the case for RDR.

Pop in
GTAIV streaming was pretty identical on both consoles.
Click to expand...
 
Pucc said:
Mid 2010!
There's no excuses, seriously. Especially on the PS3. Zero excuses, really.
They fail.
.
Click to expand...

i'm sure the dev team could come up with plenty of excuses and they're certainly not failures for being unable to live up to your standards.
 
Magnus said:
A number of people have PM'd me, asking me to post my impressions having played both for a number of hours each.

Honestly, all the information from official sources of coverage by now will render most of my comments from the last few days useless, but in general, despite being a ridiculous PS3 fanboy, I'm deciding on the 360 version, purely for two reasons: the undebatably improved framerate (which I'm particularly anal about) and the undebatably faster loading times (literally half the length of loads on the PS3 version, and often far shorter than even that -- referring to both the startup first load, and the loads/saves before/after each mission).

One addendum -- I have it installed to the 360 HD, which may have a lot to do with the improved frames/loads, etc.

Both versions are super awesome, and as most have said, if you're not sensitive to either qualm, the main considerations should be your system's reliability (RROD), controller preference (people really seem to hate L2/R2 aiming on the PS3, which I thought was just fine), and if you're into multiplayer, your friends list and the cost of Live. I don't have experience with the apparently horrendous Gamespy to comment on how that would hinder the PS3 MP experience.

Love you all long time.
Click to expand...

Framerate comparison seems to be in line with what a couple of reviews have mentioned. I'm hoping the 360 load times are short cause I hate em with a passion. It doesn't seem to be too big of deal from some of the streams I've watched so far though.
 
How are the shadows on 360? I hated the look of them in GTA4. They look fine on those screenshots, so I am leaning towards the 360 version, but I'll bite my fingers off if i see those weird artifacts again.
 
I don't know if it's fair to say that Rockstar is not good at tech. They usually fail to reach a certain level of polish though. Their open world games always have a ton of technical problems, so criticism is very valid.

charsace said:
Can't wait for "PS3 version is warmer," posts.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the kind of "subtle" trolling we should try to avoid in this thread according to the OP?

LordPhoque said:
You used the "lie argument", really ? What is this, Forza 3/GT5 comparison thread ?
Click to expand...

Comparing comparison threads now? :lol

LordPhoque said:
Technically, they didn't lie, because they never said "native 720p"IIRC. And Alan Wake is not available on PS3 with native 720p...
Click to expand...

You're part of the problem.
 
MightyHedgehog said:
Indeed.

Alan Wake is clearly pushing an insane level of draw distance, as well, and a lot more dynamic lighting and shadow action while upping the post-processing, 3D fog and particle use to the max...perhaps the most dense and dynamic of any console game on any platform. Per scene, per frame, AW seems to be pushing shit to the limit, it seems. RDR obviously has to account for a not-so 100% determined and near-random access of data to spool in since it doesn't have quite as many limits on where to go as AW, but, again, it seems quite a bit lighter with on-screen pixel action. Apples and oranges, still...different considerations for memory and CPU/GPU based on the differences in the games' designs. Just goes to show that harder decisions need to be made on consoles, as is traditional to fixed platforms for the last thirty-odd years...compromises in certain areas that result in a better trade for other things regarding image-quality and performance.


I don't think it's the magical zero-sum game you guys constantly make it out to be just precisely because there's so much value in the human impression based on naked-eye viewing and playing of a game in front of you...in motion...there's a way to balance the numbers to come up with end results that are nearly indistinguishable to numerically-superior visuals and performance for the vast majority...the same majority who makes up the buying audience for these games. 99% of paying customers, of all normal consumers simply won't notice the difference unless told...and then, they have to revise and reconsider their previously-ignorant impressions based on information that is supposed to enhance or ruin their feelings about something on a gut-level. It's practically an intellectually dishonest move if visuals are only there to serve an impression, not work out on a balance sheet of cold numbers that ignore the fact that technology is an enabler of these visuals and their impressions and not the focus.



GoW III doesn't have the same considerations for resources that RDR or AW or many other games have. You guys can't just assume everything is a 1:1 comparison because not all software uses the hardware equally. GoW III is linear as hell compared to RDR and doesn't have nearly the same level of spatial scope and density of stuff going on as AW. Every decently-ambitious title, at some level, is a custom-fit shoe for the same foot, yet designed for distinctly different activities and goals. GoW III is an exclusive with no need to consider any other set of resources other than those offered by the PS3 and the same holds true for AW for X360. If there's going to be a concerted effort to achieve some level of reasonable performance and visual parity, RDR has to strike a balance, just like any other multiplatform game.
Click to expand...

Joker is that you?
 
Klocker said:
would not be surprised if it ends up both being 720 with less AA on PS3 and slightly worse FR... sounds about right.
Click to expand...
I'm playing it right now, and im calling sub HD on the PS3 version.
 
It's probably sub HD but it looks really nice. Sharp, no slowdown in little towns. This is a much better effort than GTA4
 
LovingSteam said:
Anymore PS3 impressions regarding the visuals? I will be picking RDR up in 45 minutes and don't know whether to get the 360 or PS3. I couldn't care less about the multiplayer but the visuals are the most important. My 360 unit doesn't have HDMI while my PS3 is hooked up to my 47inch flat screen. Argh.
Click to expand...


got this from another board ..he A/B switched both versions although set up can have some say in this as well

I'm going to try and answer probably the biggest question a multiplatform game can have.

Which version is better?

I got both. PS3 and 360 versions.

Simply put after A/Bing both.


360.

Run smooth. Has better textures and has better color...


I won't go into too much detail but the PS3 suffers from a stuttering camera and jaggies that become very apparent in sunlit areas.

The biggest thing you'll notice and something that is pretty immediate are the clous and cloud cover differences in both the PS3 and 360 versions. the 360 has crisp and clear skies and clouds and their very definitive while the PS3 version is blurry and very bland....
Click to expand...
 
Pistolero said:
The softness, the jaggies, the blurry filter...Definitely 640p!
Click to expand...
Yep, I think the eye test probably suggests 640p, but I wouldn't say it definitively until the pixel counters do their thing.

EDIT: Now that I've been staring at these for awhile, a few have that ominous Ghostbusters quality. =/
 
MacBosse said:
That looks ... blurry.

How is the 360 version in comparison?

Edit: And jesus christ, cowboys speakin' german is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...
I am playing the 360 version and it looks much better than that. It looks like the promo shots if you ask me. However, I am pretty sure that the capture card/software combination is helping to many of the artifacts in those screens, so its not really a valid comparison. All the shots released by Rockstar are from the framebuffer of the 360 version, and that's really how good it looks on your TV. That guy in the official thread wasn't lying, the game looks that fucking good. Now, it's obvious that the same framebuffer capture process has not been using while taking these images, so its not a fair comparison IMO.
 
PS3 version has vSync enabled whereas the Xbox 360 has it disabled & has screen-tearing..

The screen-tearing can't be seen too much.. but it is definately there. If you want superior image quality, go for the PS3 version.
 
enkeixpress said:
PS3 version has vSync enabled whereas the Xbox 360 has it disabled & has screen-tearing..

The screen-tearing can't be seen too much.. but it is definately there. If you want superior image quality, go for the PS3 version.
Click to expand...
Everyone is wise to your bullshit, so give it up.

I'm surprised you haven't taken a vacation yet, "Rockstar employee."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LTTP: Red Dead Redemption 2
2
76
2K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
[IGN] Red Dead Redemption 2 Comparison Videos Are Lying to You
Opinion Analysis 
27
1K
Karim replied
Red Dead Redemption 2 is Getting a Pokémon Mod
Trailer Indie 
10
347
Dirk Benedict replied
  • Locked
Red Dead Redemption 2 Enhanced Edition
News Rumor  2 3
111
2K
Mr Hyde replied
Red Dead Redemption coming to iOS and Android November 4th
News 
12
2K
SSfox replied
Top Bottom